Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 102, Issue 2, pp 169–191 | Cite as

The Collapse of a European Bank in the Financial Crisis: An Analysis from Stakeholder and Ethical Perspectives

Article

Abstract

Fortis, the leading Benelux financial group, had been a success story of successive mergers of bank and insurance companies, with leadership in corporate social responsibility (CSR). One year after the acquisition of the major Dutch financial conglomerate ABN AMRO, the global financial crisis caused the collapse of the Fortis group. The purpose of this article is to use the case study of Fortis’s recent fall as a basis for reflective considerations on the financial crisis, from stakeholder and ethical perspectives. A selected number of key events of the history of the dramatic crisis at Fortis will be analysed from different ethical frameworks. Special consideration will be given to fairness of communication, shareholder activism and conflicts of interests of CEO’s mergers opportunities. A confrontation between the CSR policy and the reality raises the fundamental questions why the powerful CSR guidelines and ethical principles did not help in the assessment of the risks.

Keywords

CSR stakeholder business ethics bank financial crisis collapse shareholder activism CEO acquisition 

References

  1. Alpaslan, C. M., Green, S. & Mitroff, I. 2009. ‘Corporate Governance in the Context of Crises: Towards a Stakeholder Theory of Crisis Management.’ Journal of Contingency and Crisis Management, 17:1, 38-49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armour, E. 2002. How boards can improve the odds of M&A success. Strategy & Leadership, 30(2), 13-20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atkins, R. and N. Tait: 2009, January 22. ‘Pressure to Adopt the Least-Worst Option’, Financial Times, 5.Google Scholar
  4. Ayotte, K., & Skeel, D. (2010). Bankruptcy or Bailouts? Journal of Corporation Law, 35(3), 469-498.Google Scholar
  5. Bakan, J. 2004. The Corporation, The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  6. Betts, P.: 2008, October 16, ‘Small Investors Learn the Lessons of Fortis Carve-up’, Financial Times, 27.Google Scholar
  7. Bodolica & Spraggon, 2009. The implementation of special attributes of CEO compensation contracts around M&A transactions. Strategic Management Journal, 30 (9), 985-1011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boeker, W. 1992. ‘Power and Managerial Dismissal: Scapegoating at the Top.’ Administrative Science Quarterly, 37:3, 400-21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Broadbent, D.: 1958, Perception and Communication (Pergamon Press, London)Google Scholar
  10. Buchholz, R. & Rosenthal, S. 1998. Business Ethics: The pragmatic path beyond principles to process. Upper Saddle River (N.J.): Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  11. Condijts, J., Gérard, P., & Thomas, P., 2009. La chute de la maison Fortis. Editions Lattès, ParisGoogle Scholar
  12. Cosimano, T. 2004. Financial Institutions and Trustworthy Behaviour in Business Transactions. Journal of Business Ethics, 52(2): 179-188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crane, A. & Matten, D. 2004. Business Ethics: A European Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. D’Aveni, R. A. & Kesner, I. F. 1993. ‘Top Managerial Prestige, Power and Tender Offer Response: A Study of Elite Social Networks and Target Firm Cooperation during Takeovers.’ Organization Science, 4:2, 123-51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dalton, D. R. & Daily, C. M. 2001. ‘Director stock compensation: an invitation to a conspicuous conflict of interests?’ Business Ethics Quarterly, 11:1, 89-108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davis, G. & Thompson, T. 1994. ‘Social Movement Perspective on Corporate Control.’ Administrative Science Quarterly, 39:1, 141-73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Debels, T. 2009. De Ondergang van Fortis. Houtekiet. Antwerpen.Google Scholar
  18. Depuydt, P., 2010. De Kloof- Hoe de breuk tussen Belgen en Nederlanders Fortis fataal werd. Prometheus, - HRC Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  19. Donaldson, T. 2008. ‘Hedge Funds Ethics,.’ Business Ethics Quarterly, 18:3, 405-16.Google Scholar
  20. Eisenhardt, K. M.: 1989, ‘Agency Theory - An Assessment and Review’, Academy of Management Review 14(1), 57–74Google Scholar
  21. Eisenhardt, K. M. and M. Graebner: 2007, ‘Theory Building from Cases: Opportunities and Challenges’, Academy of Management Journal 50(1), 25–32Google Scholar
  22. Fassin, Y. 2005. ‘The reasons behind non-ethical behaviour in business and entrepreneurship.’ Journal of Business Ethics, 60:3, 265-79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fassin, Y. 2008. ‘Imperfections and shortcomings of the stakeholder model’s graphical representation.’ Journal of Business Ethics, 80:4, 879-88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fendt, J. 2005. The CEO in Post-Merger Situations. Delft: Eburon Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  25. Ferrell, O. & Fraedrich, J. 1994. Business Ethics. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  26. Freeman, E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.Google Scholar
  27. Freeman, E. 1994. ‘The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions.’ Business Ethics Quarterly, 4:4, 409-21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Frooman, J. 1999. ‘Stakeholder influence strategies.’ Academy of Management Review, 24:102, 191-205.Google Scholar
  29. Hall, M. 2009. The sub-prime crisis, the credit crunch and bank “failure”: An assessment of the UK authorities’ response. Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance, 17(4), 427-452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Haspeslagh, P. and Jamison, D., 1991. Managing Acquisitions: Creating Value through Corporate Renewal. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  31. Haunschild, P. 1994. How much is that organization worth? Interorganizational relationships, uncertainty and acquisition premiums. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(3): 391-411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hayward, M., and Hambrick, D. 1997. Explaining Premiums Paid for Large Acquisitions: Evidence of CEO hubris. Adminsitrative Science Quarterly, 42(1): 103-127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hirsch, P. 1986. From ambushes to golden parachutes: Corporate takeovers as an instance of cultural framing and institutional integration. American Journal of Sociology, 91(4): 800-837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jansson, E. 2005. ‘The Stakeholder Model: The Influence of Ownership and Governance Structure.’ Journal of Business Ethics, 56:1, 1-13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jenkins, J. C. 1983. ‘Resource Mobilization Theory and the Study of Social Movements.’ Annual Review of Sociology, 9(1), 527-53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jones, G. & George, J. 1998. ‘The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for cooperation and teamwork.’ Academy of Management Review, 23:3, 531-46.Google Scholar
  37. Kilpi, J., 1998. The Ethics of Bankruptcy, London, Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Levitt, B. & March, J. 1988. ‘Organizational Learning.’ Annual Review of Sociology, 14(1), 319-38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mackenzie, C. 2007. ‘Boards, Incentives and Corporate Social Responsibility: the case for a change of emphasis.’ Corporate Governance An International Review, 17:5, 935-43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Maelschalck, M., Lambrechts, M., Sephiha M. & Michielsen, S., 2009. Banqueroute, comment Fortis a ébranlé la Belgique. Editions Racine, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  41. Marcoux, A. 2003. ‘A Fiduciary Argument Against Stakeholder Theory.’ Business Ethics Quarterly, 13:1, 1-24.Google Scholar
  42. Mc Carthy, J. & Zald, M. 1997. ‘Resource Mobilization and Social Movement Theory.’ American Journal of Sociology, 82:6, 1212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McGuire, J., Dow, S. & Argheyd, K. 2003. ‘CEO Incentives and Corporate Social Performance’ Journal of Business Ethics, 45(4), 341-59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Michielsen, S. & Sephiha, M. 2009. Bankroet. Tielt (Belgium): Uitgeverij Lannoo.Google Scholar
  45. Mitchell, R., Agle, B. & Wood, D. 1997. ‘Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts.’ Academy of Management Review, 22:4, 853-86.Google Scholar
  46. Modrikamen, M. 2009. Fortis, jusqu’au bout. Brussels: Editions Luc Pire.Google Scholar
  47. Neuman, W. L.: 1997, Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 3rd Edition (Allyn and Bacon, Boston)Google Scholar
  48. Pearson, C. M. and J. A. Clair: 1998, ‘Reframing Crisis Management’, Academy of Management Review 23(1), 59–76Google Scholar
  49. Pesqueux, Y. & Damak-Ayadi, S. 2005. ‘Stakeholder Theory in Perspective.’ Corporate Governance, 5:2, 5-21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Post, J., Preston, L. & Sachs, S. 2002. ‘Managing the Extended Enterprise: The New Stakeholder View.’ California Management Review, 45:1, 6-28.Google Scholar
  51. Roll, R.,1986. The hubris hypothesis of corporate takeovers. Journal of Business, 59(2): 197-216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Seglin, J.: 1998a. Would You Lie to Save Your Company? Inc. July 1st.Google Scholar
  53. Seglin, J., 1998b. True Lies. Inc. October 20, pp. 136–139.Google Scholar
  54. J. Smit (2009) De Prooi. Prometeus, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  55. Solomon, R. 1997. It’s Good Business. Ethics and Free Enterprise for the New Millennium. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield D. Publishers.Google Scholar
  56. Spence, A. (1981) The Learning Curve and Competition. The Bell Journal of Economics 12(1): 49–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. ten Bos, R. & Willmott, H. 2001. ‘Towards a post-dualistic business ethics: Interweaving reason and emotion in working life.’ Journal of Management Studies, 38:6, 769-93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Thomas, R., Schrage, M., Bellin, J., & Marcotte, G. 2009. How Boards Can Be Better - a Manifesto. MIT Sloan Management Review, 50(2), 69-74.Google Scholar
  59. van Caloen, A. & Van de Woestyne, F., 2009. Fortis, Dexia, le séisme. Editions Luc Pire & La Libre Belgique, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  60. Vaughan. D., 1999. The Dark Side of Organizations: Mistake, Misconduct, and Disaster. Annual Review of Sociology, 25(1): 271-305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Weaver, G. R., Trevino, L. K. & Cochran, P. L. 1999. ‘Integrated and decoupled corporate social performance: Management commitments, external pressures, and corporate ethics practices.’ Academy of Management Journal, 42:5, 539-52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wetlaufer, G. 1989. The Ethics of Lying in Negotiations, Iowa Law Review, 75: 1219.Google Scholar
  63. Wiersema, M. 2002. ‘Holes at the Top: Why CEO firings backfire.’ Harvard Business Review, 80:12, 70-78.Google Scholar
  64. Williams, C. C. & Ryan, L. V. 2007. ‘Courting Shareholders: The Ethical Implications of Altering Corporate Ownership Structures.’ Business Ethics Quarterly, 17:4, 669-88.Google Scholar
  65. Winn, M. 2001. ‘Building Stakeholder Theory With a Decision Modeling Methodology.’ Business & Society, 40:2, 133-66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Yin, R.: 1994, Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd Edition (Stage, Newbury Park)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Management, Innovation and EntrepreneurshipGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  2. 2.Vlerick Leuven Gent Management SchoolGhentBelgium
  3. 3.Department of MarketingGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  4. 4.Green Templeton CollegeUniversity of OxfordOxfordU.K.
  5. 5.Oxford Martin School, Institute for Science, Innovation and Society (InSIS)University of OxfordOxfordU.K.

Personalised recommendations